Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars Initiative

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article currently does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. A simple search shows only 84 hits, mostly trivial. And it's not as if it's gained any traction in its chosen market - it's supposed to be a global fundraising organisation but after 3 years of operation its "prize fund" peaked at $5,000 and it looks like someone just spent that - there's currently only $42.89 in the bank. I'm not saying it's a scam but it certainly fails WP:GNG, which is more than enough. Probably WP:ARTSPAM too. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are many organizations called "Mars Initiative" which makes proper searching a bit difficult. Of the sources in the article, only the Digital Journal one works toward notability. I dio find one other good source - a Crowd Fund Insider article. Is that enough for notability? Not sure - I am on the fence. Pinging @Andrewman327: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Across all social media (Google+, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, & YouTube), Mars Initiative has 172,486 followers. Here is their Facebook page. Isn't that enough for notability? Oh, and there must have been a mistake on the URL above because it looks like the Mars Prize Fund still has over $5,000. Pinging @Andrewman327: so he can accept this AfC for input.

• Sorry, but that's not strictly correct. The twitter account, for example, has only 560 followers; Facebook has 1,789 likes, a few for each post; LinkedIn has only 62 followers. The exception is Google+ with a crazy number, but that's the "circle", not dedicated followers - circles are notoriously easy to grow and virtually meaningless as an index of notability. Moreover this social media activity seems to be centred around retweets and posts about sexy Martian goings-on - pictures, videos, announcements and the like - rather than arising directly from any activity by the organisation. Donations are virtually zero ($5,000 in 3 years).

I note that the prize fund has been restored to its former sad balance of $5,000 or so and I've struck out my earlier comment. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Forget the social media counts. Forget the bank balance. The guideline here is WP:ORG, and this organization fails it. I could find no independent sourcing at all, except for the Digital Journal interview at the article and the Crowd Fund Insider interview mentioned by Thaddeus. It turns out that there are five nonprofit organizations[1] all trying to do the same thing - send somebody to Mars. It appears that this group is neither unique nor particularly impactful. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This Wikipedia page should not be deleted because Mars Initiative is a valuable U.S. non-profit organization in online STEM education, promoting science literacy and public interest in Mars exploration internationally. My NGO has worked in cooperation with Mars Initiative since its inception in 2011. For example, Mars Initiative has generated over 6 million views of their STEM content to date via their Google+ page and over 169,000 followers! On Facebook, they have 1790 likes, 560 followers on Twitter and over 400 members in their LinkedIn Group. These are impressive social media outreach statistics in comparison with many non-profits in the space education and advocacy sector run by all-volunteers. From a grassroots global audience perspective, Mars Initiative is a unique and highly notable organization that is well appreciated by the people it serves in real numbers, punching well above its weight despite limited financial resources. Human Mars missions may be a decade or two away, but thanks to these dedicated and visionary volunteers, the long-term dream is kept alive for future generations. "This is a real organization with real objectives." Please take this into serious consideration now and in the future. Thank You -Dwayne Lawrence (a Mars Initiative volunteer), Founder & Executive Director - Friends of NASA, Montreal, Canada www.FriendsofNASA.org

— Dwaynel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• 560 Twitter followers is not "impressive social media outreach". The Google+ figure sounds impressive until you realise that they are simply reposting lots of interesting Mars stuff and that's bound to get lots of likes. But thay not have been unable to convert this into fund-raising, which shows that people are just clicking "follow" and then going away. Nobody is talking about them on the web. As MelanieN points out above, they unquestionably fail WP:ORG. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I really do not know why this is even an issue as the work of this organization and what it stands for is very important for space travel. It seems as though Andyjsmith might have something against the organization for him to be so against it. I ask why? Here are a few links: SpaceVidCast, FernandoRosales, MarsTravel.org, UrgencyNetwork. It is clear that this organization is real. It is clear that this organization is unique. So what if they are slow to grow their dontions. The fact that they are an official nonprofit organization with all current filings and they are trying to succeed should be worthy enough to keep a tiny Wiki page about them... Again, what does Andy have against the organization? Here are come more official links:

Mars Prize Fund, Texas Comptroller's Office, IRS Website.

• I don't know what that list of links is supposed to prove, but FWIW here's a breakdown:

SpaceVidCast - self published, irrelevant under WP:RS

FernandoRosales - a graphic designer, so what?

MarsTravel.org - self published, irrelevant under WP:RS

UrgencyNetwork - fund raising site, proves nothing

Texas Comptroller's Office - proves they exist

IRS Website - ditto

Nobody has said they don't exist, simply that they are not notable. WP's minimum criterion for notability is WP:GNG, which they obviously and totally fail. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Mars Initiative is to create grassroots support for a manned mission to Mars. That support will eventually result in more donations toward a prize fund for the first entity that lands humans on Mars. Unfortunately most causes are not going to be financially supported by the public over night, which is why we attempt to build a groundswell of social media followers. We do so by posting interesting articles or photos of Mars so that those interested in Mars will gravitate toward our pages and share the articles with others. Overtime as our follower base increases we will begin to pitch different ideas more and more, including that of donating to the Mars Prize Fund. Andy states "The Google+ figure sounds impressive until you realise that they are simply reposting lots of interesting Mars stuff and that's bound to get lots of likes," but the marketing strategy makes practical sense because with literally zero funds it is impossible to establish a following unless you start to provide something people want. We do that by being a central source that people can check for the latest photos and articles about Mars from around the web. So is our entire 'circle' going to contribute to the Mars Prize Fund? Absolutely not, but as it expands so to will our reach and our ability to reach out and inspire others to contribute their time or resources toward such a cause. If you don't think the marketing strategy is sound then I encourage you to explain to me a better way to establish a following with zero funds and volunteers (which is what we all are). What makes Mars Initiative "unique" is that it is the only organization that is developing a "Google Lunar X Prize" type fund for the first humans that land on Mars. Further, it is attempting to crowdfund said prize. As I have stated above, most grassroots campaigns require gaining rapport and a following from your target audience before you can fully mobilize with your call to action. Could Mars Initiative be doing a better job at getting the word out there? As the Media Relations/Marketing Director, yes, we absolutely could, but what you have to remember is that we are volunteering for this organization and all of us have jobs and families that limit our ability to enhance the organization. Is Mars Initiative a legitimate Non-Profit, yes. Has it gained a substantial following on social media, yes, with particular emphasis on Google+ because a large amount of our audience favors that social media platform. Please consider the above when making the decision to delete Mars Initiative's Wikipedia page. Thank you. --David J Geaney, Media Relations/Marketing Director, Mars Initiative

• I'm afraid you answered your own question: "Could Mars Initiative be doing a better job at getting the word out there?... yes". Until you have got the message out there you're unlikely to pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The guideline also states that "No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it". Sorry, but thems the rules. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to get past WP:ORG PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.